Would you agree on a pre-emptive strike against North Korea?

[Soundwave]

Azuren said:

Soundwave said:

He won't bomb them anyway because there's a good chance he likes being alive and living like a king.

Once NK got nuclear technology, there was no turning the clock back and that IMO is George W. Bush's fault for pushing them to do this. 

Now you can't really do shit. You can sanction them and that's about it. World community is likely simply going to have to get used to the idea of a nuclear NK. 

At least Obama was proactive with Iran in getting a deal done (all the fucking bozos who argued against that deal ... well gee look at fucking NK ... is that better?). 

So testing missile distance, explosion strength, and firing over Japan is to do what again?

Is to show the world that NK will defend itself no matter what. 

They are actually proceeding in a fairly logical manner. They know full well what happens to "regimes" like Saddam Hussein who didn't have nuclear weapons. Those are the guys that end up dead. 

Kim has no intention of being one of them. Nuclear weapons assure NK that the regime will live on, and even more than that, they can use their belligerience as a bargaining chip now. "OK, we'll stop firing missles over Japan, but you have to stop treating us like a rogue state and we want economic kick backs".

It's actually fairly well played on their part. They've taken a pretty shitty poker hand and maneuvered themselves into a strong position by betting everything on nukes.